Racial abilities & stereotypes.

[Kzach]

Ability bonuses and penalties really annoy me. It's one of the few things about 5e that I've heard that has disheartened me, ie. that they seem intent on keeping them and bringing back penalties. In my opinion, they only serve to limit imagination and creativity rather than empower it.

What I'd love to see is no racial ability bonuses or penalties at all. Since that isn't going to happen, the compromise I'd like to see is a +2 bonus to one stat, and if the player wants another +2, they have to take a -2 to some other stat... but this should be the PLAYER's choice.

The arguments I've heard to keep static ability bonuses and/or penalties is that they reflect racial tendencies and stereotypes. But my argument here is that racial abilities and stereotypes should be a player CHOICE and that irrespective of whether they are or aren't, both are FAR better represented through powers, themes, class choices, paragon/prestige classes, backgrounds and feats.

Why limit everyone for the sake of the very few who demand that we all play burly dwarves and skinny elves? Wouldn't you rather have the choice and have that represented in the stats you can get? And if you do choose to play a stereotypical character, you can allocate your stats and choose all the feats and powers and whatnot that you want to represent that; but I and everyone else who doesn't want that, can put our bonuses elsewhere and go down a different route.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I voted feats and such, but I meant both.

I certainly hope a halfling is weaker than a half-orc. Ability bonuses represent inherent, inborn characteristics. It should be viable to play against type, but there should be a type. What I think we could do without is some of the culturally based racial abilities-elven weapon proficiencies and dwarven bonuses vs orcs and such-and leave those to be feats. And do a lot of those feats (or themes or whatever).

 

[Wiseblood]

The arguments I've hear to keep static ability bonuses and/or penalties is that they reflect racial tendencies and stereotypes. But my argument here is that racial abilities and stereotypes should be a player CHOICE and that irrespective of whether they are or aren't, both are FAR better represented through powers, themes, class choices, paragon/prestige classes, backgrounds and feats.

Why limit everyone for the sake of the very few who demand that we all play burly dwarves and skinny elves? Wouldn't you rather have the choice and have that represented in the stats you can get? And if you do choose to play a stereotypical character, you can allocate your stats and choose all the feats and powers and whatnot that you want to represent that; but I and everyone else who doesn't want that, can put our bonuses elsewhere and go down a different route.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. Here is where I disagree. Racial feats and classes. That reminds me of human only paladins. The door needs to swing both ways or there should be no door.

Unless of course you were not implying the desire for racial specifics. If you were implying that the player should decide to fit or break stereotype it should be up to them, I would agree to that also.

 

[Mengu]

There is also the factor of what stats do... if strength affects how much one can carry, then sure, it makes sense for a half-orc to be stronger than a halfling, and carry more, that's great. If strength affects attack bonus, that hamstrings choices.

Ultimately, I want people to play what they want, not what the system tells them is good to play. Unfortunately this can only be accomplished by not affecting the combat pillar with stats, but that's never going to happen in D&D. So the question is rather academic.

 

[hafrogman]

I think ability score penalties and bonuses are at their best when they represent physical truths about a race. The thing to remember is that 10-11 represents the human average for a stat. Thus a dwarf with a 10 con is slightly more frail than his fellows. It doesn't mean that sickly dwarves can't exist, or hearty elves, or strong halflings. Penalties adjust what the racial average is, implying something real and tangible about the race as a whole. I do think that 5e is going in a good direction to returning them to +1/-1, making them more flavor and less abusive.

However, I agree with you when culture is applied to the system. Dwarves are gruff and taciturn . . . penalty to charisma. Oh yeah? Well my dwarf was raised by circus folk, and had to be performing and vamping for the crowd since before he can remember. This is more stereotype than I'm comfortable with. Get into intelligence and wisdom and it's even harder to pin down what's culture and what's inborn.

On the third hand (Athach!) if you limit bonuses/penalties to only the physical three, there's only so many combinations and it gets kinda same-y. No real solution to suggest. Just my thoughts.

 

[the Jester]

If your average halfling is more dextrous yet weaker than the average human, I think a +1 to Dex and a -1 to Str is quite appropriate.

 

[dangerous jack]

I think it can depend on two things. One is your view of what the different races represent:
* Elves are only as different from humans as the different human races: no racial modifiers
* The average elf is a little more dextrous and has slightly lower constitution than a human: +1 dex, -1 con
* Elves exhibit unearthly grace, but are frighteningly frail: +4 dex, -4 con

The other is what the stats represent. If they are closely tied to the core combat performance (e.g. if you want to hit someone then you need a high strength), then I grudgingly prefer the +1/-1. If you can get rid of combat dependence and have stats mostly affect skills & role-playing (with maybe increased damage for high strength, or more opportunities for criticals with a high dex) then I definitely prefer races to be incredibly distinct (+4/-4).

What I don't like is the limitation that all races have to have +1/-1. Why not have +1/-1 and +2/-1/-1 in the same game, or even a +4 str/-4 dex/-2 int/-2 cha hill giant that is balanced by other racial abilities?

If I'm playing in a game that allows some characters to have an innate teleportation ability (e.g. 4e eladrin), why is it so wrong to have a race that transcends human limits?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Perhaps a better way to achieve the original effect would be maximum and minimum stats. So instead of an elf getting +2 Dex, you would be unable to play an elf unless you put at least a 12 in Dexterity, say. I'm assuming a point buy system.

<- Old school.

 

[CleverNickName]

I have no problem with the way that racial modifiers are done in 3.5E or Pathfinder. Race should matter.

 

[Greg K]

In my opinion, race should be the biological aspects: Some examples include
1. Ability Score bonuses and penalties
2. Bonuses to saves vs.poison, disease, sleep, etc. (true immunity should, generally, be rare (e.g, constructs not needing to eat or breathe)
3. Special sight (e.g., dark vision, night vision, etc.)
4. Special movement (e.g., swimming, flying, gliding)
5. Natural weapons (e.g., claws, fangs, tails)
6. Special healing requirements (e.g., requiring constructs to be healed with a craft skill or spells that repair items rather than cure wound spells)
Cultural aspects (e.g, special weapon proficiency or bonuses, bonuses to skills representing culture, detecting unusual stonework, etc ) should be separate, a background or theme layered on top of race. The rules can suggest a "default", but it is a recommendation that can be replaced depending upon the campaign or to represent a character that grew up in another culture.